Appeal No. 2001-0482
Application No. 09/186,078
In view of the above discussion, since the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 20, as well as claims 2-19 and 21 dependent
thereon, is not sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 22-35,
we note that while we found Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive with respect to the obviousness
rejection of claims 1-21 discussed supra, we reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claims
22-35. In contrast to the previously discussed independent claims 1 and 20, which set forth a
method of manufacturing a semiconductor device in which a trench liner is formed after the
implantation of impurities, independent claim 22 is directed to an embodiment in which the trench
oxide liner is formed prior to the ion implantation of impurities. In addressing the language of
independent claim 22, the representative claim for Appellants’ suggested grouping (including claims
22-30 and 33-35), the Examiner proposes the combination of Rho and Gardner.
Our review of the Examiner’s stated position (Answer, page 3)3 reveals that the Examiner has
pointed out the teachings of the Rho and Gardner references, has reasonably indicated the perceived
differences between this applied prior art and the claimed invention, and has provided reasons as to
how and why this prior art would have been modified and/or combined to arrive at the claimed
invention. In our view, the Examiner's analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we find that the
Examiner has at least satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. The
3 The statement of the grounds of rejection in the Answer makes reference to Office action mailed
November 19, 1999, paper no. 6.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007